Buying freedom of speech

Robert Lee Hotchkiss Jr.

I was deeply disturbed by The Times editorial on malls as free-speech zones, both for its content and for the clear conflict of interest.

Years ago, almost every locality had its own independent newspaper and often several newspapers. The small Mississippi town where I lived as a child had two independent newspapers, each with a unique editorial point of view. But then, the newspapers merged, eliminating one point of view. Following that, a large chain bought the combined paper, and far-off corporate owners set editorial policy.

During the recent constitutional referendum in Venezuela, much was made of President Hugo Chavez's decision not to renew the license of a television station which had been instrumental in the short-lived coup against him. Putting aside the multiple news outlets with which the United States meddled in occupied Iraq, these pundits also ignored that much of the media in Venezuela is controlled by Chavez's opponents. While the opposition in Venezuela has been able to control the dialogue in its country and around the world, the opposition in the U.S. has had virtually no access to the media. While Venezuela's press has called endlessly for the removal of Chavez by any means lawful or unlawful, not one major news outlet in this country has called for impeachment hearings against either Vice President Dick Cheney or President Bush.

How to explain the widely different reaction to threats to media diversity? At one time news outlets in the U.S. maintained the pretense of public service. Now they have all but abandoned the pretense. The influence of advertisers is almost completely unchecked. Through media consolidation, advertisers can immerse the consumer in a constant barrage. In New York, advertisers can target the consumer from the moment they pick up the Wall Street Journal until they tune in to late-night programming on Fox News. The all-the-truth-you-can-buy culture has become pervasive. Never before has the civic discourse been so controlled by so few.

Now The Times is arguing that control be extended still further, suggesting that mall tenants may be within their rights to control discourse in the mall. Why should the store owner be the sole arbiter of information in the mall? What about employees and consumers? Shouldn't they have access to state their points of view as well? Or must they take out an advertisement in The Times to express their views?